A number of commentators (particularly since about 1940) have drawn attention to the use of chiasm or chiasmus in the Bible, and as we approach the text it may be helpful to have some idea about the meaning of these terms.

“Chiasmus (or chiasm) is an important structural device/form commonly found in ancient literature and oratory, both secular and sacred. Robert Norrman’s concise definition, which affirms that chiasmus involves ‘the use of bilateral symmetry about a central axis,’ well describes its basic essence. However, the present author’s definition of chiasmus as ‘the use of inverted parallelism of form and/or content which moves toward and away from a strategic central component’ intentionally goes beyond Norrman’s statement in that it more explicitly mentions the literary dynamics of chiasmus in its fullest technical sense” (Chiasmus: An Important Structural Device Commonly Found in Biblical Literature – Brad McCoy Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 09:2 Fall 2003 p. 18).

McCoy goes on to offer this helpful example:

“In its most general sense, chiasmus involves inverted parallelism between two or more (synonymously or antithetically) corresponding words, phrases, or units of thought. Examples of this basic dynamic would include the contemporary saying, “Winners [A] never quit [B] and quitters [B’] never win [A’],” as well as the biblical description of Christ in Revelation 3:7: He who opens [A] and no one shuts [B], and shuts [B’] and no one opens [A’]. This type of inverted parallelism between corresponding components can take place at a micro level (within a single sentence) or at a macro level (within the broad flow of a large discourse)" (p. 19).

Later he adds:

“In an attempt to emphasize properly the importance of a central component in chiasmus, one team of scholars has recommended that displays of chiastic structures designate the pivotal central component with an “X” (as in ABXB’A’ or ABXX’B’A’). This helpful suggestion facilitates an active recognition of the fact that the “uniqueness of chiasmus, as distinct from other forms of parallelism, lies in its focus upon a pivotal theme, about which the other propositions of the literary unit are developed" (pp. 20, 21).

McCoy provides an example:

The Chiasmus of John 1:1-18

A The Word with God the Father (1:1–2)

B The Word’s role in creation (1:3)

C God’s Grace to mankind (1:4–5)

D Witness of John the Baptist (1:6–8)

E The Incarnation of the Word (1:9–11)

X Saving Faith in the Incarnate Word (1:12–13)

   E’ The Incarnation of the Word (1:14)

        D’ Witness of John the Baptist (1:15)

             C’ God’s Grace to mankind (1:16)

                  B’ The Word’s role in re-creation (1:17)

                     A’ The Word with God the Father (1:18) (p. 29)

McCoy argues that “a  recognition of chiastic structuring aids the exegetical task in at least three important ways” explaining:

“First, ‘chiasms help the exegete delineate units of thought

……

Second, since chiasm involves the parallel inversion of corresponding components in a particular discourse, resulting in an overall structural balance revolving around the distinct central component of the overall unit, a recognition of chiastic structure leads the interpreter properly to appreciate the pivotal function and the emphatic importance of that central thought unit (emphasis mine).

…..

Third, since the corresponding subunits (A and A’; B and B’ and so on) of a chiastic structure are parallel ‘either in a synonymous or an antithetical way,’ a recognition of the chiastic ordering of a passage leads the interpreter actively to compare and/or contrast the interplay between these textually separated but thematically paired units of thought. In other words, the meaning of A is complemented by A’, the meaning of B is complemented by B’, and so on through the entire discourse” (pp. 30, 31).

Application

Many point out that 1 Cor 11:2-16 follows a chiasmic arrangement and although details differ most view v 10 as the pivotal verse (X).  I need to do more study on the subject of chiasm. However I have come to the conclusion that our understanding of v10 will affect our view of the entire passage. Again, although I am not settled in my own mind, it is gratifying to find that a chiasmic arrangement is compatible with my understanding of Paul’s head covering instructions. For example in his The Value of Chiasm for New Testament Interpretation Ronald E Man argues:

“What is being referred to by ἐξουσίαν in 1 Corinthians 11:10 is a vexing exegetical problem. A solution may be found by taking note of the chiastic structure in 11:7–10:

A Injunction to men (v. 7a)

 B Reason for injunction to men (v. 7b)

  B’ Reason for injunction to women (vv. 7c–9; vv. 8–9 are parenthetical in nature; they support the assertion of v. 7c)

A’ Injunction to women (v. 10).

If this understanding is correct, then ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς in verse 10 is parallel to κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν in verse 7, and εξουσίαν then refers to a head covering” (Bibliotheca Sacra 141:562 Apr 1984 p. 152).

Conclusion